Can Hindus be atheist?

[Spirit_Warrior]

That I don't acknowledge in you the authority to decide about such things, clearly.

But I am not claiming to be the authority. I am citing from the scriptures of Hinduism

Scriptures are at the very best marginal resources for any religion. Any authority that may exist in a religion will unavoidably come from living consciences, never from a scripture.

That is your opinion.

That is how a living dharma - or a living religion - is supposed to be.

That is also your opinion. It is not what your creed of Buddhism accepts. Your creed certainly accepts a scriptural canon.

 

[LuisDantas]

But I am not claiming to be the authority. (...)

That is a good thing ...

(...) It is not what your creed of Buddhism accepts. Your creed certainly accepts a scriptural canon.

... and it is too bad that you fail to understand the implications of your own statement.

My opinion is that you are wasting my time for no constructive purpose.

 

[sayak83]

But I am not claiming to be the authority. I am citing from the scriptures of Hinduism



That is your opinion.



That is also your opinion. It is not what your creed of Buddhism accepts. Your creed certainly accepts a scriptural canon.

No
How important are the scriptures to Buddhists?
Buddhists do not consider the Tipitaka to be a divine, infallible revelation from a god, every word of which we must believe. Rather, it is a record of the teachings of a great man that offers explanations, advice, guidance and encouragement and which we should read thoughtfully and respectfully. Our aim should be to understand what the Tipitaka teaches, not just believe it and thus what the Buddha says should always be checked against our experience.

You might say that the informed Buddhist’s attitude towards the scriptures is similar to a scientist’s attitude towards research papers in a scientific journal. One scientist conducts an experiment and then publishes his or her findings and conclusions in a journal. Other scientists will read the paper and treat it with respect but they will not consider it valid and authoritative until they have conducted the same experiment and got the same results.

11. The Buddhist Scriptures – Bhante Dhammika

 

[Vinayaka]

Dear Vinayaka, I think we are on the same side in this debate, so do not take this as a disagreement.

The worse thing that we can do is keep quiet. The least we can do is peacefully debate.

The traditionalists amongst us aren't going anywhere. We will maintain these traditions until the sun sets on this planet one final time. The truth is within, and cannot be erased, no matter how many Christs, atheists, or anti-Hindu policies or politicians get adopted by the liberal watered-down versions of Sanatana Dharma. I'm not worried. But for me, this comes in practice, not in a debate you cannot win. That side isn't going to give in. Recently the very anti-Hindu one Dr. Pollock was in my city, and Dr. Malhotra was scheduled to speak a week later, but it mysteriously got cancelled. We both know why.

As long as we have a few traditional Gurus who follow the ancient ways, even one sampradaya, the eternal dharma will remain.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Correct, the tactic that you, repeatedly use.


The word-by-word translation that has been made does not produce nonsense, making your example irrelevant. So your point is refuted.

It did actually, the sentence was incoherent.

Indeed, I prefer to read the texts directly rather than the pages and pages of commentary and creative interpolations that separates the texts, breaks its flow and alters their meaning. Most of the scholars of religion in the university that I have studied with (I have taken courses in Hindu philosophy) do the same. They read the bhasya-s when talking about the philsophy of Sankara etc. but read the sutra-s separately as they are quite distinct works with their own flow, structure and worldview.

You are reading both selectively.

I have already shown how the verses in Yoga-sutra have been interpolated to provide a different meaning.
Obviously Vaisesika believes in the idea of an atomic soul (like the Nyaya) and taken as a whole is not compatible with atheism. My main argument has always been that scriptures are not normative to the practice (but rather guide it) and it is entirely possible for a Hindu to use discerning and selective use of various scripture and philosiphical works to forge his/her own sadhana.
Naturalism in Classical Indian Philosophy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Well, at least you acknowledge the Nyaya-Vaieshika does indeed accept the soul and as a whole is not compatible with atheism. I think we are making some progress now.

My main argument has always been that scriptures are not normative to the practice (but rather guide it)

Nyaya-Vaiseshika also accept the inerrancy and authority of the Veda.

The delusion is strong in this one.
The Catholic position is an explicit yes, they worship the same God.
Nostra aetate
The mainstream protestant position outside of the evangelicals is also an explicit yes. I have shown the Episcopalians before. Here is more,
Yes, Christians and Muslims Worship the Same God (But Here's What That Means & Doesn't)
You could try and educate yourself and read some books
Do We Worship the Same God?
Muslim position is unambiguous in the Quran, they indeed do worship the same God.

Then put your money where your mouth is, start a debate with Jews, Christians and Muslims "You worship the same God" or "Christianity and Islam are theologically secs of Judaism" and see what answers you get.

Here is what I found so far with just a simple google search:

Ex Muslim turned Christian

Do Muslims and Christians Worship the Same God? | RZIM

Do Muslims and Christians Worship the Same God?

With this desire for love in mind, I turn now to the question: Do Muslims and Christians worship the same God? Like all good questions, the answer is more complex than most want, but I am confident of my position: Muslims and Christians do not worship the same God, but given the complexity of the matter we all ought to stop demonizing those who disagree with us.

I should start by saying this: for years after leaving Islam and accepting Jesus as Lord, I believed that Muslims worshiped the same God as Christians but that they were simply wrong about what He is like and what He has done. After all, I had been taught as a young Muslim to worship the God who created Adam and Eve, who rescued Noah from the flood, who promised Abraham a vast progeny, who helped Moses escape Egypt, who made the Virgin Mary great with child, who sent Jesus into the world, who helped the disciples overcome, and who is still sovereign today. Is that not the God of the Bible?​

Christian:

Question: "Do Christians and Muslims worship the same God?"

Answer: The Muslim and Christian views of God have some similarities. Christians believe in one eternal God Who created the universe, and Muslims apply these attributes to Allah. Both view God as all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-present.

A vital difference between the Islamic and Christian views of God is the biblical concept of the Trinity. In the Bible, God has revealed Himself as one God in three Persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. While each Person of the Trinity is fully God, God is not three gods but three in one.​

So, do Christians and Muslims worship the same God? A better question is, “Do Christians and Muslims both have a correct understanding of who God is?” To this question, the answer is definitely no. Because of crucial differences between the Christian and Muslim concepts of God, the two faiths cannot both be true. The biblical God alone addresses and solves the problem of sin by giving His Son.​

Christian:

Do Christians and Muslims worship the same God? | CARM Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry

No, Christians and Muslims do not worship the same God. There are similarities in their views of God, but there are also distinct differences.

As you can see in the chart below, each affirms that there's only one God, and that he is eternal, knows all things, is omnipresent, and omnipotent. However, Christianity is radically different from Islam in its affirmation of the doctrine of the Trinity where God consists of three distinct and simultaneous persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Islam denies this and accuses Christians of teaching polytheism.

Quran, 5:73 (Yusuf Ali), “They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.”

As you can see, Islam denies that God is a Trinity. Also, in Christianity Jesus is the second person of the Trinity, who is in flesh. But Islam denies this as well.

Quran, 5:17, "In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary. Say: "Who then hath the least power against Allah, if His will were to destroy Christ the son of Mary, his mother, and all every - one that is on the earth? For to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between. He createth what He pleaseth. For Allah hath power over all things."​

As you can see it produces controversy because of mutual opposition. In none of the Christian sects you see them worshipping Allah and in none of the Muslim sects you see them worshipping Jesus. They do not worship the same God/s. You used this ridiculous and absurd comparison, to compare the Shiva and Devi that the Shaiva and Shakta Tantriks worship is not the same Shiva and Devi that were worshipped in the earlier Vedic tradition

Your continued avoidance of the Gita and Upanishads quotes is noted.

Your continued missing that the Gita and Upanishads both rely on shabd pramana to instruct Arjuna and the students about Brahman is noted

Since I have participated in multiple interfaith meets with Christians, Hindus, Jews, Muslims and Buddhists with actual practicing imams, rabbis and Christian priests giving invited talks, I am quote comfortable regarding my positions on this.

You are confident in everything you think, because you thought it However, put your money where your mouth is, if you Christianity and Islam are just sects of Judaism, find out what they think, don't speak for them.

I agree


I agree.


Does not follow. Not supported by scriptures or experience of saints and hence reject.

So where did the saints get knowledge of Brahman in the first place from, so that they started doing various practices to get it?

False analogy. We are 3D people who have temporarily forgotten about the third dimension. But depth (i.e. Brahman) exist within us and can express itself at any suitable opportunity, including sabd but also any other kind of life experience.

Doesn't make sense. My argument was if you were a 2D person, you would not be able to know there is a 3D reality without somebody from the 2D going there and then reporting it exists. Similarly, Rishis are those that gone to the 3D and come back to report it exists to 2D people. Those who have not experienced the 3D wouldn't even know that it exist unless somebody tells them. Hence, why sabda is pramana for Brahman.

Vedanta school is a specialized branch of late classical systemic philosophy. Many Hindus believe in the reality of Brahman, but most of them are not officially affiliated with the explicit Vedanta school nor subscribe to each and every aspect of its doctrines. Once again the Vedanta school is a good and useful guide but has no necessary normative authority on those Hindu-s who believe in and practice in their sadhana to realize Brahman

I never said the later Vedanta school was normative. However, we know that the later Bhakti movementt which was based on worship of Brahman as nirguna and saguna, is an off-shoot of Vedanta

 

[sayak83]

It did actually, the sentence was incoherent.

It was not. If you wish to understand what the sentence says I am happy to help.

You are reading both selectively.

No you are.

Well, at least you acknowledge the Nyaya-Vaieshika does indeed accept the soul and as a whole is not compatible with atheism. I think we are making some progress now

.
Please quote me where I ever said before that Nyaya-Vaisesika does not accept the soul. Check my posts on Nyaya philosophy in the associated thread. Large parts of Nyaya and Vaisesika philsophy can be used by atheists to structure their atheist Hinduism. A simple and obvious point.

Nyaya-Vaiseshika also accept the inerrancy and authority of the Veda.

Vaisesika does not. But Nyaya does, though it does its creative interpretation techniques to get the Veda to tell what it wants to hear.

Then put your money where your mouth is, start a debate with Jews, Christians and Muslims "You worship the same God" or "Christianity and Islam are theologically secs of Judaism" and see what answers you get.

Are the articles from official Vatican website, official Episcopalian website and joint books written by practicing imams, rabbis and pastors not sufficient. Obviously the fundamentalist evangelical and Islamic fringe and their official mouthpieces do not accept this. But then the fundamentalist evangelicals also believe that Catholics, Orthodox and Mainline Protestants are not "true" Christians (bit like you). So what?

Here is what I found so far with just a simple google search:

Ex Muslim turned Christian

Do Muslims and Christians Worship the Same God? | RZIM

Do Muslims and Christians Worship the Same God?

With this desire for love in mind, I turn now to the question: Do Muslims and Christians worship the same God? Like all good questions, the answer is more complex than most want, but I am confident of my position: Muslims and Christians do not worship the same God, but given the complexity of the matter we all ought to stop demonizing those who disagree with us.

I should start by saying this: for years after leaving Islam and accepting Jesus as Lord, I believed that Muslims worshiped the same God as Christians but that they were simply wrong about what He is like and what He has done. After all, I had been taught as a young Muslim to worship the God who created Adam and Eve, who rescued Noah from the flood, who promised Abraham a vast progeny, who helped Moses escape Egypt, who made the Virgin Mary great with child, who sent Jesus into the world, who helped the disciples overcome, and who is still sovereign today. Is that not the God of the Bible?​

Christian:

Question: "Do Christians and Muslims worship the same God?"

Answer: The Muslim and Christian views of God have some similarities. Christians believe in one eternal God Who created the universe, and Muslims apply these attributes to Allah. Both view God as all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-present.

A vital difference between the Islamic and Christian views of God is the biblical concept of the Trinity. In the Bible, God has revealed Himself as one God in three Persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. While each Person of the Trinity is fully God, God is not three gods but three in one.​

So, do Christians and Muslims worship the same God? A better question is, “Do Christians and Muslims both have a correct understanding of who God is?” To this question, the answer is definitely no. Because of crucial differences between the Christian and Muslim concepts of God, the two faiths cannot both be true. The biblical God alone addresses and solves the problem of sin by giving His Son.​

Christian:

Do Christians and Muslims worship the same God? | CARM Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry

No, Christians and Muslims do not worship the same God. There are similarities in their views of God, but there are also distinct differences.

As you can see in the chart below, each affirms that there's only one God, and that he is eternal, knows all things, is omnipresent, and omnipotent. However, Christianity is radically different from Islam in its affirmation of the doctrine of the Trinity where God consists of three distinct and simultaneous persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Islam denies this and accuses Christians of teaching polytheism.

Quran, 5:73 (Yusuf Ali), “They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.”

As you can see, Islam denies that God is a Trinity. Also, in Christianity Jesus is the second person of the Trinity, who is in flesh. But Islam denies this as well.

Quran, 5:17, "In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary. Say: "Who then hath the least power against Allah, if His will were to destroy Christ the son of Mary, his mother, and all every - one that is on the earth? For to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between. He createth what He pleaseth. For Allah hath power over all things."​

As you can see it produces controversy because of mutual opposition. In none of the Christian sects you see them worshipping Allah and in none of the Muslim sects you see them worshipping Jesus. They do not worship the same God/s. You used this ridiculous and absurd comparison, to compare the Shiva and Devi that the Shaiva and Shakta Tantriks worship is not the same Shiva and Devi that were worshipped in the earlier Vedic tradition

Its typical that you will go for the mouthpieces of the fundamentalists to make your point. They are minority of Christians, Jews and Muslims in the world. My links represent organizations that represent far more people of the associated faith and hence refutes your point decisively.

Your continued missing that the Gita and Upanishads both rely on shabd pramana to instruct Arjuna and the students about Brahman is noted
So where did the saints get knowledge of Brahman in the first place from, so that they started doing various practices to get it?

You continued missing the fact that Upanisads provide numerous examples where people learnt Brahman spontaneously by interacting with the natural elements, or dd so through inferences of dream and sleep, or through debated going back into more and more basic foundations. Of course Arjuna learnt of Brahman by direct experience of God. They all refute your contention.

Doesn't make sense. My argument was if you were a 2D person, you would not be able to know there is a 3D reality without somebody from the 2D going there and then reporting it exists. Similarly, Rishis are those that gone to the 3D and come back to report it exists to 2D people. Those who have not experienced the 3D wouldn't even know that it exist unless somebody tells them. Hence, why sabda is pramana for Brahman.

Your argument makes no sense as it does not apply. We are all 3D persons with Brahman inside us. Its just a question or re-acquainting ourselves with our selves, which any experience can become a catalyst for. Rishi-s did not go anywhere. They were the first to undergo this transformation in their path through samsara and told about it. But the path to direct realization without scripture remains wide open.

I never said the later Vedanta school was normative. However, we know that the later Bhakti movementt which was based on worship of Brahman as nirguna and saguna, is an off-shoot of Vedanta

No it is is not. Bhakti arose as an independent and vigorous movement (Alvars, Nayanars) which was later philosophized using the systematic techniques developed by Nyaya-Vaisesika and Buddhists and adopted by Vedanta systematizers.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

The traditionalists amongst us aren't going anywhere. We will maintain these traditions until the sun sets on this planet one final time. The truth is within, and cannot be erased, no matter how many Christs, atheists, or anti-Hindu policies or politicians get adopted by the liberal watered-down versions of Sanatana Dharma. I'm not worried. But for me, this comes in practice, not in a debate you cannot win. That side isn't going to give in. Recently the very anti-Hindu one Dr. Pollock was in my city, and Dr. Malhotra was scheduled to speak a week later, but it mysteriously got cancelled. We both know why.

As long as we have a few traditional Gurus who follow the ancient ways, even one sampradaya, the eternal dharma will remain.

Vinayaka ji, this was the spread of Hinduism in the past:

[]

Today, Hinduism is a declining religion all over India, it has fallen from 84.1% in 1951 to 79%. In the recent years there has been even steeper falls, and the falls are even more alarming in individual states where it has been as much as 10-20%. As you and I both know, there are strong anti-Hindu political forces operating in India and outside of India.

A few Hindu scholars have compared the increasing institutionalised anti-Hinduism in academic discourse in India and in the West to antisemiticism in the early 20th century, which culminated in Nazism. Recent books like Doniger's "Hindus: An alternative history" have been compared to books like "Jews and their lies" So we should be grateful that there are scholars like like Malhotra et al representing our cause, because if it were not for them the anti-Hindu statements in the California textbooks and the recent failed attempt to rebrand India "South Asia" would not have taken place.

I think it is the duty of Hindus to defend their religion and not remain quiet. We should also not be comforting ourselves with complacent beliefs like "Oh, we are Santana dharma, we will never be destroyed" The above graphic and the current statistics shows otherwise.

I personally see this as the outcome of competing dynamics of powers or a clash of civilisations, with secular Hindus basically acting like sepoys for Doniger, Pollock et al. The resurgence of Hindu India is causing massive anxiety for the current power axis.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

ishi-s did not go anywhere. They were the first to undergo this transformation in their path through samsara and told about it.

^^ This

Hence, why they are the foundation of our religion Hinduism.

By the way, do we understand the same thing by "samsara" the cycle of birth and rebirth, have you added your secular spin to it?

 

[sayak83]

^^ This

Hence, why they are the foundation of our religion Hinduism.

Every person who in the ages before, today or in the future, encounters Brahman, through whatever means, jointly form the foundation, which is why the testimony of living saints and spiritual giants (Gandhi, Vivekananda, Aurobindo..even Karma Yogi-s who were not overtly spiritual) are no less important to the tradition. Their past, present and continuing testimony through teaching and actions, even if quite diverse and often divergent, form the core. And to it is added the joint experience of the lives of billions of Hindu-s who in their own way express Brahman in the world. The main musicians are these masters of the various yoga-s and the hundreds of millions of Hindu-s are the ensemble.
I also add the Buddhist and Jain greats as well as their disciples to this.

By the way, do we understand the same thing by "samsara" the cycle of birth and rebirth, have you added your secular spin to it?

yes we understand the same thing.

 

[Vinayaka]

Vinayaka ji, this was the spread of Hinduism in the past:

Just so you know, I'm fairly aware of these issues, and I don't need convincing. At the same time, there have been pockets of resurgence. In Mauritius, In Trinidad, in America, and more. Tradition is still alive. I doubt that an internet forum is the best place to have this battle, the impact is practically negligent. Still, I'm not sure as to solutions.

Discussions like this are valid, and we certainly need others like Malhotra. In Academia, most of the really anti-Hindu 'scholars' are old and nearly dying off. They are fighting their last breaths as we speak, and have great difficulty in finding anyone to take up the cause, as the apathy around all things religious is abundant. Materialism is a larger concern.

Sanatana Dharma has survived the onslaught of Muslim invasions and attempted genocide, the British invasion, and subsequent neo-this and that. I'm personally not that concerned. What will be will be. I'm coming back to find it alive, I'm sure.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Every person who in the ages before, today or in the future, encounters Brahman, through whatever means, jointly form the foundation, which is why the testimony of living saints and spiritual giants (Gandhi, Vivekananda, Aurobindo..even Karma Yogi-s who were not overtly spiritual) are no less important to the tradition. Their past, present and continuing testimony through teaching and actions, even if quite diverse and often divergent, form the core. And to it is added the joint experience of the lives of billions of Hindu-s who in their own way express Brahman in the world. The main musicians are these masters of the various yoga-s and the hundreds of millions of Hindu-s are the ensemble.
I also add the Buddhist and Jain greats as well as their disciples to this.

I don't think you understand I do not disagree with your view that Brahman is not attained through scriptures and nor does the school of Vedanta, all we say is that pramana that such a reality as Brahman exists is sabda.

You don't seem to understand my views, they are not fundamentalist, extremist or intolerant, and you would understand this if you read a few of my posts elsewhere, like this one

"My views informed by my Advaitic thinking is Buddhism, Jainism even Christianity and Islam or that matter most religions are valid paths and will lead to the same result if followed faithfully."

I am going against my own samapradaya where I learned Vedanta by saying this. Hence, your portrayal of me as a zealot begs rexaminaiton.

yes we understand the same thing.

In that case you accept the separate existence of the soul from the body?
You accept there is a carrier that transmigrates with your memories from the body to body?
You accept there is another subtle plane or loka where the soul resides in between bodies?

 

[sayak83]

I don't think you understand I do not disagree with your view that Brahman is not attained through scriptures and nor does the school of Vedanta, all we say is that pramana that such a reality as Brahman exists is saba.

You don't seem to understand my views, they are not fundamentalist, extremist or intolerant, and you would understand this if you read a few of my posts elsewhere, like this one

"My views informed by my Advaitic thinking is Buddhism, Jainism even Christianity and Islam or that matter most religions are valid paths and will lead to the same result if followed faithfully."

I am going against my own samapradaya where I learned Vedanta by saying this. Hence, your portrayal of me as a zealot begs rexaminaiton.

You do not seem to understand my view that I have observed many things in modern atheism as well that I consider to be quite conducive also in leading one to an engaged and awakened life. And I usually subtract Islam, because of the problems inherent in the Quran. I also make the additional deduction that if the paths do lead to similar kinds of spiritual awakenings, then it should be possibly for them to run in parallel for a person doing sadhana without clashing, even if we, today, often lack the language to explain the coherence. At the end of the day, i trust the person's spirit, as its there Brahman lies and from there all inspiration, all great works and all miracles are sourced.

In that case you accept the separate existence of the soul from the body?

This depends on how reincarnation is expressed. Its different in Advaita, Nyaya and Buddhism. I accept the fact of reincarnation (based also on personal experience) and agnostic about the mechanism. Resolving a dispute between Yajnavalkya and Buddha is beyond my pay grade. I do not know that much.

You accept there is a carrier that transmigrates with your memories from the body to body?

There must be (personal experience). Do not know what it is.

You accept there is another subtle plane or loka where the soul resides in between bodies?

No idea. Scriptures say so but are very vague and divergent about the specifics.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

You do not seem to understand my view that I have observed many things in modern atheism as well that I consider to be quite conducive also in leading one to an engaged and awakened life. And I usually subtract Islam, because of the problems inherent in the Quran. I also make the additional deduction that if the paths do lead to similar kinds of spiritual awakenings, then it should be possibly for them to run in parallel for a person doing sadhana without clashing, even if we, today, often lack the language to explain the coherence. At the end of the day, i trust the person's spirit, as its there Brahman lies and from there all inspiration, all great works and all miracles are sourced.

Again, you misuderstand my view, I do not say that modern atheists are demoniacal or that they cannot realise Brahman. Nor does the Gita. The Gita is talking about the Charvakas, who were not metaphysical atheists and materials, but ethical atheists and materialists. You do not seem to understand if there is no truth or life after death, then there is no objective purpose of life, you can make it up as you go. If there is no moral law, then morality is subjective, hence you can do whatever you want. If a Charvaka actually practices this, it does lead to nihilism and hedonism.

I have not misquoted Dawkins who also calls ethical materialism dangerous, I will try and find his quote.

Regarding Islam, it depends how it is practised. If a Muslim devotee loves Allah as much as a Hindu loves Shiva etc, then it is Bhakti yog. Therefore if Bhakti Yoga can lead a Hindu to realisation of Brahman, then surely Bhakti of Allah can lead a Muslim to Brahman realisation. It would be arrogant to reject the various Muslim Pirs and fakirs who attained similar states of spiritual development as their Hindu peers. I gave an example of Ramakrishna Paramhansa who was able to change his image of God to Jesus and Allah and still get the same result. Hence, why I agree that all other religious paths, provided they are practised faithfully with all your heart and mind, you can get also attain the Brahman of the Hindus,.

This depends on how reincarnation is expressed. Its different in Advaita, Nyaya and Buddhism. I accept the fact of reincarnation (based also on personal experience) and agnostic about the mechanism. Resolving a dispute between Yajnavalkya and Buddha is beyond my pay grade. I do not know that much.

Can you tell me how it is different between Advaita, Nyaya?

There must be (personal experience). Do not know what it is.

This is why there is shastra which gives both inferences and testimony of what subtle body is, what its anatomy is, what elements it consists of. As I explained in thread "Hinduism according to Advaita" real spirituality begins when you experience the subtle body, and gain control of it its subtle senses and organs.

No idea. Scriptures say so but are very vague and divergent about the specifics.[/QUOTE]

Again, there is shastra which gives both inferences and testimony for the lokas

 

[sayak83]

Again, you misuderstand my view, I do not say that modern atheists are demoniacal or that they cannot realise Brahman. Nor does the Gita. The Gita is talking about the Charvakas, who were not metaphysical atheists and materials, but ethical atheists and materialists.

I have no idea what ethical materialism is, but I suspect you are talking about unbridled consumerism and radical ethical relativism. I consider the term to be a very poor one, as it is not really tied to metaphysical materialism. I talked about Epicurus, the Greek materialist tradition from which most of today's atheism stems from. The Carvaka-s are extinct and none of what they wrote survive. Your OP was not :- Were Charvaka-s Hindus, but whether an atheist (perfectly general) can be a Hindu. I specifically talked about people like Ambedkar and Periyar, who while being strident critics of Hinduism had contributed much to its openness today (something that you yourself have been a beneficiary of) and said that such a blanket statement cannot be supported. How am I wrong? Self-obsessed atheist hedonists cannot be Hindu-s, but self-obsessed ego driven religious hypocrites cannot be either. I said this a long time ago in this thread.
You have called me a lot of unflattering things, if you re-examine them, I will retract everything harsh I have said about you.

You do not seem to understand if there is no truth or life after death, then there is no objective purpose of life, you can make it up as you go. If there is no moral law, then morality is subjective, hence you can do whatever you want. If a Charvaka actually practices this, it does lead to nihilism and hedonism.

This set of conclusions cannot be logically supported. Greeks from the very first hit upon the idea of eudaimonia, the state of leading a happy and fulfilled and meaningful life here and now and identified objective features of the world and the human psyche that severely constrain what creates such a life. The Greeks (and Romans) had an extremely week conception of an afterlife, thinking of dead people as pale echoes (shades) living a sleepy, almost inactive, existence in the twilight world of Hades. Yet you get the entire gamut of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Stoics, Seneca etc. speaking of objective ways to reach an eudaimonus life.

On the other end, in the east, was Confucius and his followers who had very little to say about Gods or afterlife, but did say that there is an objectively natural and symbiotic way of living a live in harmony with others, which when cultivated promotes both a well-functioning society and a satisfactory and meaningful life.

Can you tell me how it is different between Advaita, Nyaya?

Nyaya is strictly dualist and considers both the matter and soul to be uncreated and God as only involved as being the "prime mover", shaping the universe like a potter shapes the pre-existing clay. There is also significant differences regarding what the soul is supposed to be. I may create a separate DIR thread to do a comparative study in the future.

This is why there is shastra which gives both inferences and testimony of what subtle body is, what its anatomy is, what elements it consists of. As I explained in thread "Hinduism according to Advaita" real spirituality begins when you experience the subtle body, and gain control of it its subtle senses and organs.
Again, there is shastra which gives both inferences and testimony for the lokas

And the Buddhists and Jains have such experiences too. Have you really carefully looked at the primary literature of both Buddhists and Jains and their own arguments as they present it and decided based on your analysis that Advaita arguments are superior?

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

I have no idea what ethical materialism is, but I suspect you are talking about unbridled consumerism and radical ethical relativism. I consider the term to be a very poor one, as it is not really tied to metaphysical materialism. I talked about Epicurus, the Greek materialist tradition from which most of today's atheism stems from. The Carvaka-s are extinct and none of what they wrote survive. Your OP was not :- Were Charvaka-s Hindus, but whether an atheist (perfectly general) can be a Hindu. I specifically talked about people like Ambedkar and Periyar, who while being strident critics of Hinduism had contributed much to its openness today (something that you yourself have been a beneficiary of) and said that such a blanket statement cannot be supported. How am I wrong? Self-obsessed atheist hedonists cannot be Hindu-s, but self-obsessed ego driven religious hypocrites cannot be either. I said this a long time ago in this thread.
You have called me a lot of unflattering things, if you re-examine them, I will retract everything harsh I have said about you.

This set of conclusions cannot be logically supported. Greeks from the very first hit upon the idea of eudaimonia, the state of leading a happy and fulfilled and meaningful life here and now and identified objective features of the world and the human psyche that severely constrain what creates such a life. The Greeks (and Romans) had an extremely week conception of an afterlife, thinking of dead people as pale echoes (shades) living a sleepy, almost inactive, existence in the twilight world of Hades. Yet you get the entire gamut of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Stoics, Seneca etc. speaking of objective ways to reach an eudaimonus life.

Ethical materialism is metaphysical materialism in practice. In ancient times a philosophy was not just some abstract ideas, it was a way of living life according to certain ideas. Hence, why in ancient times, each philosophy became a religion e.g. in Greece Stoicism, Platonism, Pythagoreanism etc. In India, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Charvaka etc.

Now let me show you why metaphysical materialism leads to a Charvaka like lifestyle first beginning with their epistemology. If only what I can know through my 5 senses what I can see, hear, feel, taste, smell is what I accept to be real. Then all I know about myself is that I am nothing separate from this body. If the body is thin I say "I am thin" if the body is fat I say "I am fat" if the body is hungry I say "I am hungry" if the body is thirsty "I say I am thirsty" Whatever the body is feeling I am feeling. If the body is low in energy, "I am low in energy" If the body is stimulated with a drug "I am feeling stimulated" If the body is dying "I am dying" Therefore, if I am just a body, then my bodies needs are my needs. These include food, water, shelter and at a stretch sex -- or otherwise purely material needs. If this is the case, then in order to life a fulfilling life, I need to a life where I maximise the pleasures of my body(eat, drink and me merry) and minimise the pains of the body(weakness, disease etc) That was the Charvaka way of living.

Now, you suggest that hedonism is not the only or right way of doing this, as you hint to the Greek eudaimonia, that there are constraints on how to lead a happy life. Hedonistic lifestyles for example do not lead to happy lives, but lead to a host of other problems like diseases, addictions and imbalances. Therefore, unbridled hedonism or consumerism is not the way to go. We can moderate it. And this can still be done within the framework of a materialist metaphysics.

Here we(Dharmics) reply sure you can, but there are certain facts of life which actually makes life veritably a field of suffering and not happiness -- e.g. impermanence, change, disease, decay, death, accidents, inequality, loneliness etc. We all know of somebody who died all of a sudden, of a sudden heart attack, was murdered or got involved in an accident. This possibility of death(death does not come with appointment) lingers every moment. You can die a few months before conception to anytime during your lifetime. You see some kids die at 5 years old, some before hitting puberty, some in early adult years, some midlife and some elderly. If this is the case, the hedonist would argue then why not enjoy life as much as you can and die young rather than delay gratification and enjoy life less but die old or delay it and die suddenly young anyway.

Decay and disease is another sad fact of life. Disease can you hit at anytime in life. Kids can contract diabetes at the age of 10 and then have to limit how much candy they can eat, missing out on the pleasures their other peers are having. Some people are born with diseases which seriously limit their life, they might be born paralysed, which seriously limits what can they do. Some are born as such that they can never enjoy what other people enjoy. Decay is what we all face --- our bodies gradually start to die every decade of our life and with that life becomes more difficult. Here is a description of the stages as we understood today in modern medical science(they are also described in the Charaka Samhita): HOW OUR BODY CHANGES AS WE AGE

From the age of 40 itself the body goes into accelerated decay and a host of diseases start creeping up year by year limiting how much you can enjoy life, limiting your activities and consumption and increasing pain and discomfort in your life.

Inequality: This one is the biggest bummer. The world is extremely unfair. Some people are born beautiful, some ugly; some rich, some poor; some strong, some weak; some intelligent, some stupid; some with all 5 senses working fine, some with them not working. This leads to competition, insecurity, jealously complexes violence and war. These are facts of history --- history is full of war and conflict between people. If one country gets too rich, the poorer country wants to invade it. If one country gets too strong, it wants to invade the weaker countries. At school, if one kid is weak, he gets bullied. In the social world, if one man/woman is beautiful, they get more attention, opportunities and sex. If you are ugly it is the opposite. Worse still, the sad fact that "nice guys finish last" when you see people who are not so nice, ruthless, use each other, actually more successful than you or when the nice guy is just a loner. It is even worse, when you see the complete lack of justice --- when you see criminals get away with their crimes or innocent people punished for crimes they did not commit.

Loneliness: Loneliness is another one of those existential facts of life that is hard to accept it. When we realise the love, friendships and familial ties which we hear about in stories and see in movies is not what real life love, friendship and family is life. When we constantly experience and hear about betrayal, cheating, back-stabbing, gossip, conniving we lose trust in people. We realise everybody is driven by selfish desires -- out for themselves. The mother can abandon her son, the father his daughter, the husband his wife, the wife her husband(see Upanishad) if they cease being of use to oneself. Circumstances change, likes and dislikes change. The person who you thought you would spend the rest of your life with has "changed"

Impermanence: I have discussed this in a few of my threads. This pertains to generally any sense object suffering from the same defects. The enjoyments derived from it 1. It is temporal 2) it is limited 3) it causes dependence 4) it drains ones energy 5) It contains hidden pain. No matter what we achieve in this world, it is always going to be a give a limited a bit of happiness which will last for limited duration. Once it is over, we want another hit of something else. But this time it requires a greater dose to get the same effect. This produces dependencies on things(people, places, circumstances) to be happy. In order to achieve this we spend a lot our time and energy, and at the end of of once we achieve whatever we desired, it still only lasts for a short while, and again we are back in the painful state of desiring. In this way we keep going up and down like a yoyo through life, constantly in a state of anxiety.

Therefore, this "eudaimonia" is an impossibility to achieve in this material world, because it is a word of suffering not happiness. It is not something desirable, rather it is something we must escape. This is the first noble truth of Buddhism and Krisna also affirms that all the worlds, even the higher words are all planes of suffering. Hence, if there is no reality beyond this world one, as the materialist believes, then life basically SUCKS. Why live at all? You might as well not even be born or commit suicide(anti-natalism takes this position seriously) Given the harsh realities about life, rather than waste it such things as morality and charity, live selfishly, maximise as much pleasure as you can get and die young, than waste it on unnecessary pursuits and die old. Either way you are going to die anyway and whether you die today or tomorrow makes no difference to the final outcome: you cease to exist.

The way of the Charvaka given their metaphysical beliefs is the wisest way to live.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

You have called me a lot of unflattering things, if you re-examine them, I will retract everything harsh I have said about you.

I have not called you anything to be honest, I have simply described the way you are behaving with the correct terms to describe that. Although, I do admit, I could have used less harsh language.

You are telling me the following, and do not expect objection and rebuke

"Hinduism is not a religion" You are telling me my religion is not a religion? You invalidating a 5000,1000 year continuous religious tradition, and you expect me to just accept it?
"Hinduism is a not a religion of the book" You are telling me that we do not take the Vedas as authority, that our tradition of Sruti and Smriti that we have agreed is all a lie?
"Hinduism has no core beliefs" You are telling me that the 20 or so items I listed which repeat across the entire gamut of Hindu literature like atman, dharma, karma, samsamsar are not our core beliefs --- by extension you reject our entire darsana(system of thought) the epistemology, the metaphysics, the ethics, cosmology - as you do not realise these beliefs interlink as a part of a system of thought. You cannot reject one, without rejecting the other.
The irony is you showed this yourself.

You believe in "samsara" the cycle of birth and rebirth. I then showed you through argument than you believe in the separation of the soul from the body. As there has to be a transmigrating entity between bodies. I then showed you then there must be a carrier that carries the memories from lifetime to life time(which we call subtle body) Hence by accepting samsara, you have accepted along with it, the soul and subtle body and a law that decides what kind of next incarnation you get(karma)

Where there is a gap in your understanding is you do not realise the lokas link with it too. If there is a subtle body, then there must be a subtle dimension of this universe where the soul subtle is, where it is between bodies too and hence the universe must be multidimensional --- another core belief of Hinduism. If there are subtle bodies that are in the lokas, then it means there can be various kinds of subtle life, as they are various kinds of gross life. This links to another core belief of Hinduism --- pretas, ghandarvas, devas etc. If this subtle universe exists, then it must mean it is more fundamental and therefore cosmological prior to the gross universe -- this links to yet another core belief 24/36 tattvas of Samkhya. And so on.

Thus Hinduism is a a system of thought(Vedic darsana) and each tenet logically entails the other. You cannot not believe in one, and believe the other. If you accept the system, you are forced to accept all its tenets. It is your ignorance of how darsanas work, that you think you can cherry pick what you believe in.

This set of conclusions cannot be logically supported. Greeks from the very first hit upon the idea of eudaimonia, the state of leading a happy and fulfilled and meaningful life here and now and identified objective features of the world and the human psyche that severely constrain what creates such a life. The Greeks (and Romans) had an extremely week conception of an afterlife, thinking of dead people as pale echoes (shades) living a sleepy, almost inactive, existence in the twilight world of Hades. Yet you get the entire gamut of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Stoics, Seneca etc. speaking of objective ways to reach an eudaimonus life.

I have already responded to this, but I will add another thing. Here you do not understand the ethical theory of Hindu darsana which differs from the Greek theory significantly. The Greek theory is based on the possibility that happiness from material life is possible, but Hindu ethical theory is based on dukkha that is it is impossible to attain happiness in this material world, because it is a world of suffering not happiness. It is because of this fact of dukkha, that we must get out of samsara. We want to get out of the cycle, not remain in it forever like the Greeks do.

The inconsistencies in your beliefs is because you have cherry picked them from various sources -- a bit from Greeks, a bit form modern atheism and secular humanism, a bit from Hinduism, a bit form Buddhism, a bit from Confucianism --- and you've ended up with a hodgepodge. You views are confused rather than clear.

Nyaya is strictly dualist and considers both the matter and soul to be uncreated and God as only involved as being the "prime mover", shaping the universe like a potter shapes the pre-existing clay. There is also significant differences regarding what the soul is supposed to be. I may create a separate DIR thread to do a comparative study in the future

You fail to understand, though I have now explained to you repeatedly -- the sadarsanaa are mutually complimentary not opposing.(You see opposition where it is complimentary, and complimentary where there is opposition) hence why they are a part of a single system called Hinduism or Vedic dharma. You exaggerate their differences(which are not differences actually, but perspectives on the same truth) and and undermine their similarities.

Nyaya-Vaiseshika(NV) are not dualist, but pluralist Dualism is when you accept only two things, and NV accept 9 things as separate realities: 5 elemenets, space, time, mind and consciousness. It is pluralist, because it is dealing with the world of experience or empirical world which we learn from our 5 senses. However, it is also accepts the authority of Yoga(I cited Nyaya sutras to prove this) and Veda on those matters which are beyond the world of experience.

Samkhya Yoga(SY) are dualist. The accept two things as separate realities souls and matter. They have reduced the NV scheme from 9 down to 2, 5 elements, space, time and mind are reduced to "prakriti" and consciousness is by itself as "purusha" That is dualist, because is SY dealing with cosmology, it explaining in which order the NV elements came about. First comes mind(which is is turn subdivided into intellect, ego, and discriminating mind) Then from mind comes space. Then from space comes the rest of the 4 element air, then fire, then water and then earth first forming the subtle universe. Then when they mix with one another they form the 5 gross elements. You can see how the sequence starts from most subtle to least subtle.

Vedanta-Mimamsa(VM) are monist. They accept only one reality. SY reduces 9 to 2 and VM reduced 2 to 1. They reduced it all to Brahman

They are not anymore more mutually opposing, than Newtonian Mechanics, GR or QM are mutually opposing, they are just different views of the same reality.

And the Buddhists and Jains have such experiences too. Have you really carefully looked at the primary literature of both Buddhists and Jains and their own arguments as they present it and decided based on your analysis that Advaita arguments are superior?

First decide, are you a Hindu or a Buddhist or a Jain or a Charvaka or a secular humanist. You speak a lot for other religions and traditions of philosophy other than yours. I personally think you have a very confused worldview because you are trying to make so many mutually opposing philosophies fit together. Second, when I did I say I reject Buddhist and Jain experiences of the lokas and subtle body etc. In fact in my thread I showed the opposite, I showed that the existence of the lokas and subtle body is universally found in all religions in the world and the descriptions are similar to prove the universality of the experience. I also said that Dharmic descriptions are the most detailed and sophisticated. I never claimed Advaita's descriptions are superior.

In Advaita we accept NV for the empirical world, SY for the dualist world and even Buddhism, Jainism is valid as far as unmanfiest prakriti because that is only as as they go using perception and inference. We do not negate or contradict their experiences. All we say is there is something beyond and that can only be known through testimony of Veda.

 

[sayak83]

Ethical materialism is metaphysical materialism in practice. In ancient times a philosophy was not just some abstract ideas, it was a way of living life according to certain ideas.

It still is, as secular humanism shows.

Hence, why in ancient times, each philosophy became a religion e.g. in Greece Stoicism, Platonism, Pythagoreanism etc. In India, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Charvaka etc.

I disagree. None of them is a religion. Stop using Judeo-Christian labels on worldviews that do not fit them.

Now let me show you why metaphysical materialism leads to a Charvaka like lifestyle first beginning with their epistemology.

You will fail to show me, but hopefully I will refute your views enough to show you how wrong you really are.

If only what I can know through my 5 senses what I can see, hear, feel, taste, smell is what I accept to be real.

False. Internal thoughts, sense of self, emotions etc. etc. are all included in what is considered "sensible" and hence real.

Then all I know about myself is that I am nothing separate from this body.

False. The body changes from one year to the next, yet the self remain continuous through. I do not become somebody else if I lose a hand or grow a beard. There is a vast chasm seperating the statement "I am a material being dependent on things occurring within my body" and "I am this body". The first is affirmed by all materialists, and the latter by not a single one.

If the body is thin I say "I am thin" if the body is fat I say "I am fat" if the body is hungry I say "I am hungry" if the body is thirsty "I say I am thirsty" Whatever the body is feeling I am feeling. If the body is low in energy, "I am low in energy" If the body is stimulated with a drug "I am feeling stimulated" If the body is dying "I am dying" .

These examples are not used to show that "I" and identical to the body but rather that "I" an inseparable entity caused by the body but different from it. That I am a conglomeration of thoughts, motions, awareness events and self-sense....properties that matter elements do not have...is uncontested (even by the Carvaka-s). Early Carvaka-s use an analogy of wine vs its fermenting power and later Carvaka-s use the example of wood and the fire that leaps out of it to describe the intimately linked but different phenomena the "self" and the "body" is.

Therefore, if I am just a body, then my bodies needs are my needs. These include food, water, shelter and at a stretch sex -- or otherwise purely material needs. If this is the case, then in order to life a fulfilling life, I need to a life where I maximise the pleasures of my body(eat, drink and me merry) and minimise the pains of the body(weakness, disease etc) That was the Charvaka way of living.

False by the above assessment. Body should be satisfied only so far as not satisfying it hinders the pleasures of the self. The true pleasures of the self "I" are psychological...love, learning, thought, wisdom, peace, meaning, satisfaction etc. These are the things that, being the primary properties of the self, demand our effort.


To be continued....

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

It still is, as secular humanism shows.

Sure, and Secular Humanism is considered a religion.


It also began as a religious movement:

Holyoake's secularism was strongly influenced by Auguste Comte, the founder of positivism and of modern sociology. Comte believed human history would progress in a "law of three stages" from a theological phase, to the "metaphysical", toward a fully rational "positivist" society. In later life, Comte had attempted to introduce a "religion of humanity" in light of growing anti-religious sentiment and social malaise in revolutionary France. This religion would necessarily fulfil the functional, cohesive role that supernatural religion once served.​

The original signers of the first Humanist Manifesto of 1933, declared themselves to be religious humanists. Because, in their view, traditional religions were failing to meet the needs of their day, the signers of 1933 declared it a necessity to establish a religion that was a dynamic force to meet the needs of the day. However, this "religion" did not profess a belief in any god. Since then two additional Manifestos were written to replace the first. In the Preface of Humanist Manifesto II, in 1973, the authors Paul Kurtz and Edwin H. Wilson assert that faith and knowledge are required for a hopeful vision for the future. Manifesto II references a section on Religion and states traditional religion renders a disservice to humanity. Manifesto II recognizes the following groups to be part of their naturalistic philosophy: "scientific", "ethical", "democratic", "religious", and "Marxist" humanism.​

It has legally been defined as a religion:

The phrase "secular humanism" became prominent after it was used in the United States Supreme Court case Torcaso v. Watkins. In the 1961 decision, Justice Hugo Black commented in a footnote, "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others."

Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda[edit]​

The footnote in Torcaso v. Watkins referenced Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda,[62] a 1957 case in which an organization of humanists[63] sought a tax exemption on the ground that they used their property "solely and exclusively for religious worship." Despite the group's non-theistic beliefs, the court determined that the activities of the Fellowship of Humanity, which included weekly Sunday meetings, were analogous to the activities of theistic churches and thus entitled to an exemption. The Fellowship of Humanity case itself referred to Humanism but did not mention the term secular humanism. Nonetheless, this case was cited by Justice Black to justify the inclusion of secular humanism in the list of religions in his note. Presumably Justice Black added the word secular to emphasize the non-theistic nature of the Fellowship of Humanity and distinguish their brand of humanism from that associated with, for example, Christian humanism.

​

Even recently:

This is exactly what happened this week when the American Humanist Association won an important motion in the case of American Humanist Association v. United States, where we represent a federal inmate who was not allowed to form a humanist group, even though groups for Christians, Muslims, Rastafarians, and others were allowed. In denying the government’s motion to dismiss, the court accepted our argument that humanism should be treated like those religions. “The court finds that Secular Humanism is a religion for Establishment Clause purposes,” the decision read. It also ruled that humanism should be treated as “religion” for purposes of the Equal Protection Clause, which prohibits religious discrimination.

https://thehumanist.com/commentary/...even-anti-religion-humanists-should-celebrate​

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

I disagree. None of them is a religion. Stop using Judeo-Christian labels on worldviews that do not fit them.

Your argument is a solipsistic one. It makes no difference to the rest of the world, whether you accept Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Platonism, Taoism etc as not religions, they will officially be regarded as religions, even on this forum. Similarly, you may regard Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism as the "Dharma" but they will be officially regarded as different religions. Hence, your argument is rejected as delusional.

You will fail to show me, but hopefully I will refute your views enough to show you how wrong you really are.

In fact, you have shown me the exact opposite, all your arguments are arguments for then position of dualism and not materialism. Hence, you are actually proving my argument right that metaphysical materialism when practised cannot lead to an ethical life, so you have to admit the existence of mind as a separate entity in order to justify an ethical life and pursuit of intellectual things truth, wisdom, meaning etc

It is clear you don't understand what "metaphysics is" metaphysics is about what really exists and not simply something you can name. Metaphysical materialism does not make the claim that chairs and tables exist, chairs and table are just names humans give to arrangements of matter. It is only matter that exists.

False. Internal thoughts, sense of self, emotions etc. etc. are all included in what is considered "sensible" and hence real.

If you accept thoughts, self, mental states or what in philosophy we call "qualia" to really exist, then you accept the mind to exist as a separate substance. In philosophy we only use the term "real" if something has an independent existence not if it has a dependent existence. If mind is just a substance that depends on matter, then it does not have real existence independent of matter. It is just a name that exists for a particular arrangement of matter e.g. happiness is just chemical changes in the brain; every thought is just a firing of synapses in the brain.

The position of materialists as defined by early materialist philosophers like Loke is qualia are only secondary qualities and not primary qualities, primary qualities are material properties e.g. changes in electrical activity which are experienced as mental properties.

False. The body changes from one year to the next, yet the self remain continuous through. I do not become somebody else if I lose a hand or grow a beard.

This is an argument for dualism and not materialism. I used this argument myself in my thread to show why we are not the gross body.

There is a vast chasm seperating the statement "I am a material being dependent on things occurring within my body" and "I am this body". The first is affirmed by all materialists, and the latter by not a single one.

Materialists believe that there is no separate existence of the mind outside of the body, because the mind is an emergent property of the processes of the body. Whatever the body does, the mind follows. The mind has no causal efficacy because it purely dependent on bodily processes.

These examples are not used to show that "I" and identical to the body but rather that "I" an inseparable entity caused by the body but different from it. That I am a conglomeration of thoughts, motions, awareness events and self-sense....properties that matter elements do not have...is uncontested (even by the Carvaka-s). Early Carvaka-s use an analogy of wine vs its fermenting power and later Carvaka-s use the example of wood and the fire that leaps out of it to describe the intimately linked but different phenomena the "self" and the "body" is.

This is another argument for dualism. Indeed, you are right the "I" if an conglomeration of thoughts, awareness etc which are not properties matter have, hence why they locus of these properties must belong to a locus other than the body and that is the mind(NV argument)

The Carvaka argument that somehow different material arrangements of the 4 elements originate mind and consciousness was refuted by the NV. The analogy of how the parent substances of wine are not intoxicating but when mixed in a certain combination they originate the power of intoxication is a fallacious one, because to know to know that wine is intoxicating you require a conscious subject to drink the wine, the wine itself cannot drink itself and know it intoxicating.

You are bringing up old, long refuted obsolete arguments. The modern position suffers from the same problem as the Charvaka, how does matter with no mental properties combine to produce mind, this is Chalmers Hard problem of consciousness which proves fatal to the position of materialism.

False by the above assessment. Body should be satisfied only so far as not satisfying it hinders the pleasures of the self. The true pleasures of the self "I" are psychological...love, learning, thought, wisdom, peace, meaning, satisfaction etc. These are the things that, being the primary properties of the self, demand our effort.

Another argument for dualism. Indeed, I agree love, learning, thought, wisdom, peace etc etc are primary properties of the Self, and hence they NY posits the Self as as a substance which is the locus of these properties.

To be continued....

Look forward to it. I hope you do realise that so far all you have done is defend Charvaka, Atheism and Secular Humanism and Epcurianism --- and you claim to be Hindu? If you are convictions are so strong in them then why don't you just declare yourself a member of those religions, or if you like worldviews and stop pretending to be Hindu? The only reason you are causing conflict is because you claim to be Hindu while holding what we consider the views of Charvaka. Although, I am confused now to be honest, because you just admitted to believing in samsara as we Hindus understand it --- how can you reconcile samsara with materialism?

 

[sayak83]

So far, I have shown how @Spirit_Warrior has misconstrued the Carvaka (or modern) materialist position. One objection that was raised by him was that my description in the previous post (LINK) is dualism. It is not. For, dualism entails that the psychological properties like thoughts, emotions, self-awareness etc. are properties of a new immaterial substance called the soul (or something akin to a soul) apart from matter-energy. This is not the Carvaka position, nor a position held by modern materialist. In actuality, the psychological properties associated with sentient self are considered properties of physical matter that become manifest when, and only when, certain combination of matter are present under certain specific conditions. The example of the wood-fire and intoxicaticating power of wine are examples given by Indian materialists and are instructive.

1) Just as only under certain conditions and combinations do the intoxicating qualities of grape (for wine) or barley/wheat (for beer) become manifest but are not present in vanilla grape juice or vanilla barley extracts, so too only under certain combinations and conditions do the psychological qualities of certain combinations of matter energy become manifest. No extra "intoxicating substance" is needed to be posited apart from matter contained in grape or barley to explain this.

2) Just as only under certain conditions and combinations of wood and air do the combustible qualities present in a wood-fire become manifest and are not present in other cases of wood or air, so too only under certain conditions and combinations of matter in parts of the body do the psychological qualities present in a self become manifest and are not present in other combinations, even in other parts of the body. No additional fiery essence is needed to explain the leaping out of fire from wood and no additional self-substance is needed to explain the phenomenon of the self and its psychological properties in the body.

Thus the dualist charge is refuted.

In all these cases, the self (with its psychological traits) is a set of qualities/properties akin to the fire in the wood or the intoxicating power in the wine -and is considered a distinct conglomeration of properties different from the generic matter properties of bodily substance, just as fire-properties are distinct from the generic properties of wood and intoxication power is distinct from generic properties of barley or grape.

Thus the charge that Charvaka-s think that I am identical to the body is also refuted.

This it is established beyond doubt that Spirit_Warrior's arguments regarding the Carvaka are without merit and are conclusively refuted.

@Spirit_Warrior
I can defend Buddhism, Christianity, Islam as well as various aspects of Hinduism with equal strength and conviction. I use beliefs as tools for my own ends of advancement of the self in my material, psychological, ethical and spiritual growth. The beliefs and darsana-s serve me, I do not serve them. Your excessive attachment to beliefs and your desire to show other beliefs, religions and worldviews are wrong or only imperfectly true, compared to what your own beliefs are, is an impediment to your own progress along the Hindu path. The sooner you get rid of it the better.